Proposed sales tax infrastructure projects detailed

Work would include replacing county's aging Carlson Road bridge

A joint resolution by the Kansas Legislature endorsing transportation improvements for Shawnee County and the city of Topeka lists the replacement of the Willard Bridge between Interstate 70 and US-24 highway in the local highway projects section.

A proposed extension of a countywide, half-cent sales tax would bring in $45 million for maintenance and improvements at the Kansas Expocentre. Here is a partial list of improvements Expocentre general manager H.R. Cook said would be involved:

Landon Arena

■ Eliminating both sets of exterior stairs and providing one enclosed main entrance.

■ Putting in a new roof.

■ Replacing fixed seating with wider, more comfortable seats.

■ Widening concourses.

■ Adding one or two meeting rooms.

Exhibition Hall

■ Adding 30,000 feet of open floor space.

■ Making technology improvements.

■ Upgrading lighting system.

R.R. Domer Livestock Arena

■ Adding two show arenas with small meeting room and concession area (one dirt floor, one concrete floor for exhibitions with possible ice-making capabilities).

■ Adding a 250- to 300-stall barn.

■ Adding an enclosed concourse that also would tie into the Landon Arena and Exhibition Hall concourse.

Parking lot

■ New surface and regrading for drainage purposes.

■ New curbs.

■ New lighting system.

■ Expansion of lot into south grass area near Fire Station No. 5, 720 S.W. 21st.

Related Links

The N.W. Carlson Road bridge on Shawnee County’s western edge would collapse without warning if one of its pins failed, said a document county commissioners approved in 2008.

County public works director Tom Vlach reacted at the time by seeking to stifle any undue fears. He stressed that the bridge’s eight steel pins were each six inches in diameter, and were subjected to annual state inspections conducted using ultrasonic devices that detect deterioration.

Vlach added, “We’re just saying in the next 10 to 15 years we want to have the bridge replaced.”

That bridge, also known as the Willard Bridge, would be replaced under a proposal the Shawnee County Commission approved last week.

Commissioners voted 3-0 to approve a proposed ballot question and interlocal agreement with the city that would schedule a countywide, Nov. 4 vote on whether to extend a countywide, half-cent sales tax for 15 years after it expires Dec. 31, 2016. The Topeka City Council plans to take up the proposed agreement for discussion only at its July 1 meeting, said city public works director Doug Whitacre. It wasn’t clear when the council might vote on it.

Whitacre said the council’s options will include:

■ Approving the agreement.

■ Making changes and sending the amended version back to the county for approval.

■ Or rejecting the agreement.

The proposed agreement identifies an estimated $240.5 million in improvements that would be financed using revenues form the tax. Those include earmarking $75 million for economic development, $45 million for the Kansas Expocentre and $10 million for the Topeka Zoo.

The other $110.5 million would go for infrastructure.

That would include spending $34.5 million to replace bridges in unincorporated parts of Shawnee County and the Carlson Road Bridge over the Kansas River. That structure is about 2.7 miles north of Interstate 70 on N.W. Carlson Road. It was built in 1955 and rehabilitated in 1983.

Vlach said this past week the replacement bridge would be two lanes wide, like the existing bridge, and would be built immediately east of the current bridge.

The county also would build “short tie-ins” routing Carlson Road to the bridge on both sides of the river, Vlach said.

He said the county would use data collected as part of a bridge inventory and inspection report conducted every other year to decide which other bridges in the county’s unincorporated areas to replace using sales tax revenue.

The remaining $76 million anticipated in sales tax revenue would be earmarked for specific infrastructure projects.

Vlach said $13.7 million would finance work to widen N.W. Rochester Road to three lanes between N.W. US-24 highway and N.W. 50th Street while also putting in curbs, gutters, storm sewers and sidewalks on both sides. The area to be improved would include Seaman High School, 4850 N.W. Rochester.

Another $9.4 million in revenue would go to widen N.W. 46th Street to three lanes between N.W. Button and Rochester roads. Vlach said the county probably would put in sidewalks but probably wouldn’t put in curbs, gutters and storm sewers.

Other infrastructure projects proposed to be financed by the tax would be carried out within Topeka city limits.

On projects that would involve widening streets, Whitacre said it wasn’t yet certain how much wider the streets would become.

He indicated the proposed projects include earmarking:

■ $5.6 million for improvements to S.W. 6th Street between S.W. Gage Boulevard and Fairlawn Road, with reconstruction including widening, new curbs and gutters, and stormwater and sidewalk improvements.

■ $8.3 million for improvements to 17th Street between S.E. Adams and S.W. Washburn, with reconstruction to include new curbs and gutters, and stormwater and sidewalk improvements.

■ $14.6 million for improvements to S.W. 17th between S.W. MacVicar Avenue and Interstate 470, with reconstruction to include new curbs and gutters, and stormwater and sidewalk improvements.

■ $5.6 million for improvements to S.E. California Avenue between S.E. 37th and 45th streets, with reconstruction to include widening, new curbs and gutters, and stormwater and sidewalk improvements.

■ $1.5 million for improvements to N.E. Seward Avenue between N.E. Sumner and Forest, with reconstruction to include widening, new curbs and gutters, and stormwater and sidewalk improvements.

Shawnee County counselor Rich Eckert told commissioners last week the proposal calls for three other “expansion” projects to be carried out within Topeka city limits using a mixture of countywide, half-cent sales tax revenue and revenue from a citywide, half-cent sales tax Topeka voters approved in 2009. Revenue for the citywide tax may go only for “maintenance and improvement of existing streets, gutters, curbs, sidewalks, alleys and street lighting.”

■ $4.9 million for the expansion of S.W. Topeka Boulevard between S.W. 15th and 21st.

■ $5.8 million for the expansion of S.W. Huntoon between S.W. Harrison and Gage.

■ And $6.6 million for the expansion of S.W. 21st between S. Kansas Avenue and S.W. Gage.

Suzie Gilbert, the city’s communications and marketing director, said Friday the city administration plans to suggest the council consider amending the county-approved version of the proposal by removing the word “expansion” from the wording regarding projects where it is included.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

How about all $240 million go for infrastructure? We could actually try to get caught up on projects. There are quite a few residential streets that need desperate help. At the rate we are going, by the end of the proposed 15 year tax, the roads we did with the last take will need new work on them and we still would not have touched the residential roads that need help.

We need road maintenance. If the city council and county commissioners want to address economic development or the Expocentre and Zoo, they need to have the guts to put those issue up on their own ballot measure.

As it is now, I will be voting 'no'. 15 years is too long and $130 million (54% of the estimated total) going to things other than roads. And we wonder why our roads are in such bad shape to begin with, giving this is what we do.

They will promote this ballot measure as a way to fix our roads and the money going to fix our roads does not even reach half the estimated amount the tax will bring in.

How about putting in the full project with curbs and storm water on NW 46th St. Why does North Topeka never get the same treatment as SW Topeka? Did they do this to any part of Wanamaker all the way to 61st Street? Voters in North Topeka need to be vocal about this. They deserve no less on this highly visible and trafficked road than those in SW Topeka get on Wanamaker. Make it safe and do it right the first time and make it look nice.

Landon Arena
■ Eliminating both sets of exterior stairs and providing one enclosed main entrance. - NO
■ Putting in a new roof. - YES
■ Replacing fixed seating with wider, more comfortable seats. - NO
■ Widening concourses. - NO
■ Adding one or two meeting rooms. - NO

R.R. Domer Livestock Arena
■ Adding two show arenas with small meeting room and concession area (one dirt floor, one concrete floor for exhibitions with possible ice-making capabilities). - NO
■ Adding a 250- to 300-stall barn. - NO
■ Adding an enclosed concourse that also would tie into the Landon Arena and Exhibition Hall concourse. - NO

Parking lot
■ New surface and regrading for drainage purposes. - YES
■ New curbs. - NO
■ New lighting system. - NO
■ Expansion of lot into south grass area near Fire Station No. 5, 720 S.W. 21st. - NO

Topeka Zoo

NO

You people have got to quit spending just to spend. Topeka used to be a lovely, clean place. Our roads are garbage and the whole town is just not being kept clean. You have all these ideas about how to own a race track and make Topeka a great place to retire but you haven't got the first notion about how and when to take care of the absolute necessities which have fallen into disrepair because of your years of neglect. We obviously cannot generate enough money to do all the things you council people dream of. Clean this town up and give us the roads we keep being taxed for but that never seem to materialize.

The whole point of the half cent sales tax is to fund additional infrastructure project needs outside the normal infrastructure needs funded within the annual budget. This point needs to be understood in order to not confuse the purpose of the half cent sales tax with the regular city budget provisions as Vent mentioned earlier.

The maintenance of the city streets, curbs, gutters, storm water and sidewalk improvements are normal and expected expenditures of the regular city budget. And, as Vent so accurately stated, the problem is with the prioritizing of the infrastructure maintenance within the regular city budgeting and the half cent sales tax should not have to be designated for those services if the budget funding was prioritized accordingly.

The Expocentre issue is one that must be addressed; it represents an enormous investment and is also a source of revenue and of visitor revenue for other businesses in the city. This structure has had very little maintenance and upgrades in the past few decades and because it represents a significant investment, the city would simply be foolish not to upgrade such a facility in order to maintain it's relevance and sustainability.

Because of the need to remain competitive in 2014 and onward, the Expocentre must be upgraded with more comfortable seating; anyone who has attended an event knows how dreadfully uncomfortable the seating is and almost all other venues have long replaced their seating to accommodate comfort. Like it or not, comfortable seating has become an important commodity to the consumer and events seek facilities that have these features in order to realize the success of their event.

This same marketing commodity is applicable to the need of widening concourses, adding more open floor space, technology and lighting upgrades and the need of adding conference meeting rooms. All of these issues represent the difference between attracting more events and the ability to realize increased revenue. You cannot realize increased revenue until such upgrades are made as the Expocentre has become outdated and no longer is able to attract larger more profitable events as a result.

The Domer Livestock Arena has been facing the same limitations as the Expocentre. In order to remain viable, it must have upgrades such as two additional show arenas, a meeting room and concession area and ice-making capability; it must have increased space for additional stall barn accommodations and an enclosed concourse connecting with Landon Arena. If not, our Livestock Arena, which has the potential, just as the Expocentre has, will not be able to compete and remain sustainable. It is NOT an investment that should ever be allowed to deteriorate, age and become a desolate eyesore. It would simply be grossly irresponsible to do so. In order to have such facilities, a city and it's residents must care to provide the maintenance and upgrades required to assure it's viability and to assure it's revenue success.

When a person invests in home ownership and then neglects it's maintenance and neglects upgrades they will soon discover their house's marketable value has depreciated significantly. It is no different than the Zoo, the Epocentre or the Domer Livestock Arena. Over the time span of many decades, all three of these facilities represent millions of dollars of taxpayer money invested in their ongoing viability, it would be not only be wholly irresponsible to deny their viability but would also be incompetent management to knowingly allow it's failure along with the revenue impact to other businesses that depend on the visitor industry for their success.

I am not saying that we should not put money into the Expocentre or the zoo. My point is that they should be a separate ballot measure. To lump these with the road maintenance proposal shows an abuse of the citizens and how afraid the city and county leaders are. It is no different than in the state or federal legislatures where someone tacks on an amendment that is totally not related to a bill only because the item cannot pass on its own. They tack it onto a bill that is likely to pass in hopes that lawmakers will accept the unfavorable amendment because they want the meat of the bill to pass.

Our city and county leaders obviously think the citizens are too dumb to make a good decision. Otherwise, there would be separate ballot questions. One for roads, one for Expocentre/zoo, and one for economic development. And to make the sales tax 15 years with only 46% going to roads tells me that they are afraid of what the citizens will say or that in 4 years, they may change their mind.

The city should have a budget for streets already before any sales tax money is applied. But it is clear that the city has greatly fallen behind. So if we are going to apply a sales tax to bail the city out, let all the money go to roads. Right now, by the time this sales tax, if past, is over, the original fixes to the roads from the first sales tax will need to be done again. And we have not even talked about residential roads which are consistently ignored.

Yes, the zoo and Expocentre do need some loving, but they should be a separate vote and if the people say no, then the people say no.

Our leaders should never be afraid to hear the voices of the people who elected them. And if that is too much for them to handle, they should step down and we'll put someone else in who will not try to eliminate the input of the citizens from the equation.

between S.E. 37th and 45th streets, with reconstruction to include widening, new curbs and gutters, and stormwater and sidewalk improvements.
What about California from 29th St, S. to 37th St.? There is a mile of almost impassable street of California there now! Then there is Urish Rd. between 21st and 29th. It's been used as detour so many times it's falling apart and it has a 45 MPH speed limit. FIX the streets and ROADS before anything else. VOTE NO!!! for extension. Make them see reasoning and maybe they will start listening to the people. If you build good roads and streets the economic development will come without JEDO and GO Topeka.

"Landon Arena
■ Eliminating both sets of exterior stairs and
_ providing one enclosed main entrance."

If they want one enclosed main entrance to improve security, that could be viewed as having some logic - but removing the exterior stairs has the potential of opening the city to liability if the facility ever needs to be rapidly evacuated. Keep the exterior stairs and remove the exterior door handles if it is a security issue.

Repairs to / replacement of the Expo roof through tax dollars might be justifiable.
Expansions, renovations, and upgrades MUST be paid from the Expo 'profits' - NOT tax dollars.

When a business has a 'white elephant' property they need to maintain it until it is sold or re-purposed. Throwing an endless stream of money into a money pit does not make good economic sense as any successful business understands.

on outlining, listing and delineating the public works projects to be carried out in the proposed extension to our countywide half-cent sales tax. Also, for listing the proposed improvements and other uses of the portion of the sales tax to go to Expocentre and Zoo, which are pretty self-explanatory. This insight and transparency helps educate those who vote, and whether or not they would support a ballot issue of extending for 15 more years a "temporary" sales tax to fund projects and improvements as you outlined.

However, I felt your coverage was a little lacking in substance in regard to how the $15 a year eco devo monies are to be spent. Can you outline for interested readers in a future article, the current administrative costs of GO Topeka, including salaries, benefits, travel, etc., and a listing of new companies to Topeka, like Mars, as well a listing of lost companies from Topeka, from your archives, so we can compare the +s and -s of how well our money has been working during the current tax's life.. This information has been asked for at public meetings, and they say much is available on the internet's IRS website, but I like to see my information in print or online, and you have the resources and tools to get the real answers. Perhaps when we have the "rest of the story", or the missing piece of the eco devo expenditures, readers will see whether or not their current hard-earned money is being spent wisely, and if they will support a continuation of the "status quo."

The extrior stairs of the Expocenter should have been removed and moved indoors years ago. They are narrow crumbling and are slick in the winter no matter how well they are shoveled. I can only imagine trying to shovel them and must look like a mountain to an elderly person or someone with a disability.

Lacking in substance has been the Go Topeka, econ. development way. Transparency was not there and it took years to get any info on their operations. All the info ramjob asks for has been requested by folks for years and it was not forthcoming. Only in the past year or so have they cooperated due to constant pressure. I will vote NO as I feel they have not managed the previous sales tax $ to benefit all Topeka. Expo and Zoo should sink or swim on their own. Put it on a separate ballot question. Side streets are in disrepair while we continue to expand and extend on the edges of the city. VOTE NO.

Let's have a separate vote on each initiative.
We can't take care of the roads we have now and they just want
to build new ones we can't take care of. Topeka should be milling
and repaving over one hundred miles of streets every summer, but
instead we have city streets that have over 2,000 temporary patches
that are an embarrassment to the Capitol City.

We do need a new bridge over the river, let's vote on that.
Let's vote on the zoo improvements on it's own merit,
same with the expocentre.

Let's vote on economic development on it's own merit.
We have paid the director over a million dollars in salary
the last ten years, for what? To give corporations tax breaks.

This is like bundling something for everyone in hopes
their project gets funded.

Take them out of the equation and the extension is viable. I can't believe this has come about without the hiring of an out of state consultant. We already know no one is smart enough locally to figure this out right.

we voters will never question BS. Sorry if you are offended but I am tired of Paying Doug Kinsinger $406,000 per year ( for pathetic advice) as Chamber/GoTopeka CEO and him transferring $845, 000 of Public Tax money each year to Topeka Chamber to subsidize them (for nothing public). This eco-devo slush fund is becoming putrid!!! Pass it on!!!
Wolgast , Buhler, Hiller, won't demand transparency of GoTopeka! Vote No!